The Mega Cabinet in Sri Lanka: Perceptions and Implications

The first COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) report (January 2007) was much welcomed by the general public as it identified persons responsible for corruption in public institutions that were investigated. However, to date no action has been taken on the findings of this report, thus exemplifying how the traditional procedures of checks built into the Parliamentary system are being undermined in Sri Lanka.

(March 15, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) This is the first report on 'Mega Cabinet in Sri Lanka: Perceptions and Implications' published under the 'Ministerial Expenditure Monitoring' programme conducted by Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL). This report provides an analysis based on the findings of the programme to date on expenditure involved in maintaining a large cabinet in Sri Lanka within the current political and economic context.TISL expects to continue this research on 'Ministerial Expenditure Monitoring' in the coming few months with a view of creating a public debate on the need for adhering to standards of good governance by availing the necessary information in that regard.

As regards parliamentary debates, each Minister of Parliament (MP) gets an opportunity of raising a designated number of questions in Parliament. However once an MP has expressed the desire to raise a question, it has been pointed out that the question will generally be taken up only after about three months. While such delay takes away from the currency of the question it is manifested that the process does not yield effective results.
Moreover it has been pointed out that the budget process in Parliament which is intended to act as a check on governmental expenditure is woefully inadequate as an oversight mechanism. Irrespective of how unsatisfactory or flawed the budget may be, the budget ‘debate’ in Parliament is essentially predictive without any room for constructive debate. The situation has been compounded by the prevailing political culture which is predicated on party politics rather than public interest. For instance, even though the budget presented in Parliament last year allocated unspecified funds to the President and authorised the secretary to the Treasury the power to transfer unutilised funds to other headings, whether or not the parties voted with the government depended on other factors such as the government’s willingness to abrogate the Ceasefire Agreement.

According to Articles 42 and 43 of the Constitution, the Executive, which consists of the President and the Cabinet of Ministers, is accountable to Parliament. Two main ways that these provisions are given effect to are the Parliamentary oversight mechanisms and the process of raising questions in Parliament. However, the reality is that neither of these mechanisms has been used effectively to enforce standards of transparency and accountability on ministers.

The first COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) report (January 2007) was much welcomed by the general public as it identified persons responsible for corruption in public institutions that were investigated. However, to date no action has been taken on the findings of this report, thus exemplifying how the traditional procedures of checks built into the Parliamentary system are being undermined in Sri Lanka.

Additionally, the recent spate of killings and other terror tactics against MPs, irrespective of the responsibility of the ruling party, are an indication of the realities in parliamentary politics today. While some representatives of the people are not acting in the interests of the people, the right of some MPs to be independent in the performance of the duties in Parliament are being restricted by illegal means; hence jeopardising the overall efficiency of the oversight mechanisms.

Conclusion

In the light of these realities, how can standards of good governance be maintained? How can the true spirit of democracy be revived? During the interviews, the main argument made in support of a jumbo cabinet was that under the 1978 constitution, in order to maintain a majority in parliament a government must offer portfolios to MPs. Therefore it seems that portfolios in the cabinet have in fact become a form of bribe offered to MPs in return for their unquestioning loyalty to the government.

They also operate as carrots on sticks in front of the proverbial horse that lure MPs from the opposition to the government. It is clear then that the primary objective in forming a jumbo cabinet is for the ruling party to remain in power. As it was pointed out Executive power should only be exercised in the interests of the people. Maintaining a jumbo cabinet at high cost with serious practical implications e.g. prolonging focussed deliberations, in order to stay in power would clearly fall outside this scope. Such misuse of executive power amounts to corruption and the rationale for the existence of a jumbo cabinet then is an excuse to perpetuate a corrupt practice for purposes of power preservation.

A major obstacle emerging during this study has been the inability to access information. Democracy and good governance are values that can be nurtured only in a dynamic environment where there is a free flow of information and ideas. This in turn leads to public dialogue where values such as transparency, accountability and diversity are nurtured. Where the information itself cannot be accessed, this democratic process is nipped in the bud. How can there be an unbiased evaluation of the level of productivity of public institutions when information is withheld without lawful justification? Indeed, naming and shaming could be utilised as effective measures to curb misappropriation in addition to prevention and prosecution; but how is this possible without the availability of adequate information?

The importance of free flow of information is highlighted even more in the context of the failure of other democratic processes to fulfil their objectives. Be it the Parliamentary oversight mechanisms, the quality of debates in Parliament including the Budget or the accountability of the Executive to the Legislature – the reality seems to be that these processes are being undermined for short term political advantage.

A recurrent assertion during the survey, which echoes the larger public opinion, is the need for social mobility and political will to advocate change towards good governance in Sri Lanka. Interestingly, some professionals couched this necessity in the form of a duty that professionals owed to society to prevent misappropriation of public funds. Sri Lankan political history does record incidents of conviction of ministers in the event of alleged misappropriation of public funds, which exemplify the notion that “if there is a will, there is way”. Hence, TISL strongly advocates for active public involvement to demand a system of governance that is both transparent and accountable, which should in turn be responded to by political will in that regard.

The MEM project will continue its research concerning the mega cabinet with the objective of obtaining substantive answers to some of the questions raised in this paper, with a view to creating a public debate on the need for adhering to standards of good governance by availing the necessary information in that regard.
. - Sri Lanka Guardian